Demonstrates effective bacterial infection imaging in mice, suggesting a new diagnostic tool.
Bacterial infection poses a persistent and severe threat to human health. Accurate differentiation between bacterial infection and sterile inflammation is critical for timely clinical treatment. In this study, a novel 68 Ga-labeled radiotracer ([ 68 Ga]Ga-DOTA-DP-UBI 29-41) was radiosynthesized by labeling the UBI 29-41 derivative (DOTA-DP-UBI 29-41) with 68 Ga. This radiotracer was designed by introducing d -proline (DP) as a linker between the ubiquicidin 29-41 (UBI 29-41) targeting segment and the 1,4,7,10-tetraazacyclododecane- N, N ′, N, N ′-tetraacetic acid (DOTA) chelating group. The radiotracer exhibited high radiochemical purity (RCP > 98%) and favorable in vitro stability in normal saline at room temperature and mouse serum at 37 °C, with hydrophilic properties (Log D = −3.58 ± 0.04). In vitro bacterial experiments confirmed the specific and rapid binding of this radiotracer to Staphylococcus aureus, with binding reaching equilibrium within 30 min of incubation and exhibiting concentration-dependent competitive inhibition with UBI 29-41. Biodistribution studies in mouse models revealed effective accumulation of the tracer at bacterial infection sites (1.98 ± 0.66% ID/g at 30 min p.i.), significantly lower renal uptake (stabilized at ∼25% ID/g) than previous 68 Ga-labeled UBI 29-41 derivatives, and a distinct difference in uptake between bacterium-infected and sterile inflamed muscles (an infection-to-inflammation ratio of 2.11 at 120 min p.i.). PET/CT imaging further confirmed that the tracer could clearly visualize bacterial infection foci and distinguish infection from sterile inflammation in dual-pathology mice, with rapid blood clearance kinetics, renal metabolism, and excretion. Collectively, these results indicate that [ 68 Ga]Ga-DOTA-DP-UBI 29-41 will be a promising PET tracer for the specific diagnosis of bacterial infection and differentiation from sterile inflammation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jiang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: